Comments on Court Grants Expedited Hearing, Allows Withdrawal of State's Defense in Challenge to Nevada Gay Marriage BanTypePad2014-02-13T16:20:08ZAndy Towlehttp://www.towleroad.com/tag:typepad.com,2003:http://www.towleroad.com/2014/02/court-grants-expedited-hearing-allows-withdrawal-of-states-defense-in-challenge-to-nevada-gay-marria/comments/atom.xml/JJ commented on 'Court Grants Expedited Hearing, Allows Withdrawal of State's Defense in Challenge to Nevada Gay Marriage Ban'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c730253ef01a73d778a10970d2014-02-14T00:37:20Z2014-02-14T00:37:20ZJJMy hope is that the 9th Circuit will remand the case back to the district court to issue a new...<p>My hope is that the 9th Circuit will remand the case back to the district court to issue a new opinion in light of SmithKline Beecham. Alas, this would likely contain the impact of the case to Nevada, but I&#39;d love to see that judge (1) eat his original ruling, and (2) have to sign his name to a pro-equality ruling that sullies his conservative cred.</p>RonCharles commented on 'Court Grants Expedited Hearing, Allows Withdrawal of State's Defense in Challenge to Nevada Gay Marriage Ban'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c730253ef01a73d776321970d2014-02-13T21:07:26Z2014-02-13T21:07:26ZRonCharlesHaving the Governor and Attorney General of Nevada both withdraw from this case certainly does not help the anti-gay side...<p>Having the Governor and Attorney General of Nevada both withdraw from this case certainly does not help the anti-gay side in this court case. It is just one more factor that could stack the odds against it and for the side of equality.</p>Stefan commented on 'Court Grants Expedited Hearing, Allows Withdrawal of State's Defense in Challenge to Nevada Gay Marriage Ban'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c730253ef01a5116bf695970c2014-02-13T19:32:00Z2014-02-13T19:32:00ZStefanMy understanding is that the 2 remaining clerks are represented through the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage. However, due...<p>My understanding is that the 2 remaining clerks are represented through the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage. However, due to Hollingsworth, it appears that they will not have standing to appeal the ruling if it doesn&#39;t go in their favor.</p>MiddleoftheRoader commented on 'Court Grants Expedited Hearing, Allows Withdrawal of State's Defense in Challenge to Nevada Gay Marriage Ban'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c730253ef01a73d774a56970d2014-02-13T19:07:30Z2014-02-13T19:07:30ZMiddleoftheRoaderJJ - Good point. The case will definitely go forward because the same-sex couples lost at the trial court and...<p>JJ - Good point. The case will definitely go forward because the same-sex couples lost at the trial court and they want the court of appeals to reverse the trial court. However, this could happen in different ways, in part affected by what all the counties do (in other words, are Washoe and Clark still trying to uphold the law). </p>
<p>ASSUMING all of the government defendants now concede that same-sex marriage cannot be banned, then the court of appeals could issue a short order (not much explanation) saying either that the parties have agreed the case should be reversed and it is now reversed, OR it could simply &quot;vacate&quot; the trial court&#39;s order and &quot;remand&quot; the case to the trial court with directions for the trial court to grant the requested relief. Another option, of course, is for the court of appeals to issue a lengthy order and opinion that explains why the Nevada law is unconstitutional.</p>
<p>It&#39;s unclear what will happen here, EXCEPT that the private defendant who intervened (the anti-gay group) is still in the case and is still defending the law. So either the court of appeals has to rule that the private group no longer has standing to maintain the appeal (like Prop 8), of the court of appeals has to rule that the private group can still continue the fight -- which means the court of appeals will have to issue a full-length order and opinion that deals with all of the arguments presented by the private group.</p>
<p>I agree that the Prop 8 case is some precedent for saying that the private group in the Nevada case has no standing the pursue the appeal. But Prop 8and this case are not 100% identical; in Prop 8 the intervening private group was the proponent of the referendum and claimed that its role gave it automatic standing. In the Nevada case it&#39;s unclear why the private group claims it has standing -- maybe for some different reason?</p>
<p>In any event, all of this will play itself out soon enough. And for readers who think that all of this is hyper-technical legalese, remember that the Supreme Court decided the Prop 8 case on the hyper-technical legal ground of standing.</p>
<p>and the court would reverse it; (2) issue a short or</p>JJ commented on 'Court Grants Expedited Hearing, Allows Withdrawal of State's Defense in Challenge to Nevada Gay Marriage Ban'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c730253ef01a3fcbc3631970b2014-02-13T18:39:10Z2014-02-13T18:39:10ZJJ"there's the same question as in Prop 8" Actually, the Prop 8 sponsors lost at the district court and appealed....<p>&quot;there&#39;s the same question as in Prop 8&quot;</p>
<p>Actually, the Prop 8 sponsors lost at the district court and appealed. It&#39;s gone the other way here: the couples lost, and they--not the law&#39;s sponsors--are appealing. I&#39;m not a lawyer, so I don&#39;t know how the Prop 8 ruling will affect this, but it seems like a notable difference, legally.</p>DamFine10 commented on 'Court Grants Expedited Hearing, Allows Withdrawal of State's Defense in Challenge to Nevada Gay Marriage Ban'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c730253ef01a3fcbc2dd2970b2014-02-13T18:00:20Z2014-02-13T18:00:20ZDamFine10I find it strange that Washoe & Clark counties would still be involved since they are home to Reno &...<p>I find it strange that Washoe &amp; Clark counties would still be involved since they are home to Reno &amp; Las Vegas, respectively. Doesn&#39;t denying the right to marriage equality cut down on income reaped from additional marriages performed in the state? I&#39;m moving to Nevada soon &amp; would love to be married there. I wonder if Governor Sandoval has thought about the increased income...</p>Howard B commented on 'Court Grants Expedited Hearing, Allows Withdrawal of State's Defense in Challenge to Nevada Gay Marriage Ban'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c730253ef01a73d77365b970d2014-02-13T17:45:08Z2014-02-13T17:45:08ZHoward BI had the same question about the counties as well. As for the comparision to Prop 8, it seems remarkably...<p>I had the same question about the counties as well. As for the comparision to Prop 8, it seems remarkably similar, and I would imagine that SCOTUS will reject it for lack of standing just like they did for PROP 8, unless the other 2 counties are still in the fight.</p>MiddleoftheRoader commented on 'Court Grants Expedited Hearing, Allows Withdrawal of State's Defense in Challenge to Nevada Gay Marriage Ban'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c730253ef01a5116bd40b970c2014-02-13T17:01:39Z2014-02-13T17:01:39ZMiddleoftheRoaderThis article is a bit confusing. There were originally 4 government defendants: The Governor and 3 Clerks (Carson City, Washoe...<p>This article is a bit confusing. There were originally 4 government defendants: The Governor and 3 Clerks (Carson City, Washoe County, Clark County). The article reports that the Governor and the Carson City Clerk have withdrawn -- but what about the Washoe County Clerk and Clark County Clerk? If they are still in the case, then the case would definitely continue on appeal.</p>
<p>As to the private defendant -- the anti-gay group Coalition to Protect Marriage -- there&#39;s the same question as in Prop 8: do they have the standing to continue the appeal if the government isn&#39;t in the case.</p>